Robert M. Hierons
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Abstract
Formal methods are one of the most important approaches to increasing the confidence in the correctness of software systems. A formal specification can be used as an oracle in testing since one can determine whether an observed behaviour is allowed by the specification. This is an important feature of formal testing: behaviours of the system observed in testing are compared with the specification and ideally this comparison is automated. In this paper we study a formal testing framework to deal with systems that interact with their environment at physically distributed interfaces, called ports, and where choices between different possibilities are probabilistically quantified. Building on previous work, we introduce two families of schedulers to resolve nondeterministic choices among different actions of the system. The first type of schedulers, which we call global schedulers, resolves nondeterministic choices by representing the environment as a single global scheduler. The second type, which we call localised schedulers, models the environment as a set of schedulers with there being one scheduler for each port. We formally define the application of schedulers to systems and provide and study different implementation relations in this setting.
- AB00 Aldini A, Bravetti M (2000) An asynchronous calculus for generative-reactive probalistic systems. In: 8th process algebras and performance modelling workshop, PAPM’00. Carleton Scientific, pp 591–606Google Scholar
- AO08 Introduction to software testing2008CambridgeCambridge University Press1154.6804210.1017/CBO9780511809163Google ScholarDigital Library
- BA03 Discrete time generative-reactive probabilistic processes with different advancing speedsTheor Comput Sci2003290135540619356951018.6805110.1016/S0304-3975(01)00344-9Google ScholarDigital Library
- BAL97 Ben-Abdallah H, Leue S (1997) Syntactic detection of process divergence and non-local choice in Message Sequence Charts. In: 3rd international workshop on tools and algorithms for construction and analysis of systems, TACAS’97, LNCS, vol 1217. Springer, Berlin, pp 259–274Google Scholar
- BHT98 Brinksma E, Heerink L, Tretmans J (1998) Factorized test generation for multi-input/output transition systems. In: 11th IFIP workshop on testing of communicating systems, IWTCS’98. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 67–82Google Scholar
- BU91 The synchronization problem in protocol testing and its complexityInf Process Lett199140313113611439100745.6802410.1016/0020-0190(91)90166-FGoogle ScholarDigital Library
- CDSY99 Testing preorders for probabilistic processesInf Comput199915429314817218481045.6856410.1006/inco.1999.2808Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chr90 Christoff I (1990) Testing equivalences and fully abstract models for probabilistic processes. In: 1st international conference on concurrency theory, CONCUR’90, LNCS, vol 458. Springer, Berlin, pp 126–140Google Scholar
- CLSV06 Switched PIOA: parallel composition via distributed schedulingTheor Comput Sci20063651–28310822676421118.6803810.1016/j.tcs.2006.07.033Google ScholarDigital Library
- CR99 Controllability and observability in distributed testingInf Softw Technol19994111–1276778010.1016/S0950-5849(99)00036-1Google ScholarCross Ref
- CSV07 Cheung L, Stoelinga M, Vaandrager F (2007) A testing scenario for probabilistic processes. J ACM 54(6):Article 29Google Scholar
- DB85 Dssouli R, von Bochmann G (1985) Error detection with multiple observers. In: 5th WG6.1 international conference on protocol specification, testing and Verification, PSTV’85. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 483–494Google Scholar
- DB86 Dssouli R, von Bochmann G (1986) Conformance testing with multiple observers. In: 6th WG6.1 international conference on protocol specification, testing and verification, PSTV’86. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 217–229Google Scholar
- DGH+07 Deng Y, van Glabbeek R, Hennessy M, Morgan C, Zhang C (2007) Characterising testing preorders for finite probabilistic processes. In: 22nd Annual IEEE symposium on logic in computer science, LICS’07. IEEE Computer Society, pp 313–325Google Scholar
- DGHM08 Deng Y, van Glabbeek R, Hennessy M, Morgan C (2008) Characterising testing preorders for finite probabilistic processes. Logical Methods Comput Sci 4(4)Google Scholar
- DGHM09 Deng Y, van Glabbeek R, Hennessy M, Morgan C (2009) Testing finitary probabilistic processes. In: 20th international conference on concurrency theory, CONCUR’09, LNCS 5710. Springer, Berlin, pp 274–288Google Scholar
- DGHM11 Deng Y, van Glabbeek R, Hennessy M, Morgan C (2011) Real-reward testing for probabilistic processes (extended abstract). In: 9th workshop on quantitative aspects of programming languages, QAPL’11, EPTCS 57, pp 61–73Google Scholar
- Gau95 Gaudel M-C (1995) Testing can be formal, too! In: 6th International joint conference CAAP/FASE, Theory and Practice of Software Development, TAPSOFT’95, LNCS, vol 915. Springer, Berlin, pp 82–96Google Scholar
- GD09 Giro S, D’Argenio PR (2009) On the expressive power of schedulers in distributed probabilistic systems. In: 7th Workshop on quantitative aspects of programming languages, QAPL’09. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 253(3):45–71Google Scholar
- GGSV02 Grieskamp W, Gurevich Y, Schulte W, Veanes M (2002) Generating finite state machines from abstract state machines. In: ACM SIGSOFT symposium on software testing and analysis, ISSTA’02. ACM Press, New York, pp 112–122Google Scholar
- GKSB11 Model-based quality assurance of protocol documentation: tools and methodologySoftw Test Verif Reliab2011211557110.1002/stvr.427Google ScholarDigital Library
- GSS95 Reactive, generative and stratified models of probabilistic processesInf Comput1995121159800832.6804210.1006/inco.1995.1123Google ScholarDigital Library
- HBB+09 Hierons RM, Bogdanov K, Bowen JP, Cleaveland R, Derrick J, Dick J, Gheorghe M, Harman M, Kapoor K, Krause P, Luettgen G, Simons AJH, Vilkomir S, Woodward MR, Zedan H (2009) Using formal methods to support testing. ACM Comput Surv 41(2)Google Scholar
- HBH08 Hierons RM, Bowen JP, Harman M (eds) (2008) Formal methods and testing. In: LNCS, vol 4949. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Hie12 Overcoming controllability problems in distributed testing from an input output transition systemDistrib Comput2012251638110.1007/s00446-011-0153-5Google ScholarCross Ref
- HM09 Mutation testing from probabilistic and stochastic finite state machinesJ Syst Softw200982111804181810.1016/j.jss.2009.06.030Google ScholarDigital Library
- HMN08a Hierons RM, Merayo MG, Núñez M (2008) Controllable test cases for the distributed test architecture. In: 6th International symposium on automated technology for verification and analysis, ATVA’08. LNCS, vol 5311. Springer, Berlin, pp 201–215Google Scholar
- HMN08b Hierons RM, Merayo MG, Núñez M (2008) Implementation relations for the distributed test architecture. In: Joint 20th IFIP TC6/WG6.1 international conference on testing of software and communicating systems, TestCom’08, and 8th international workshop on formal approaches to software testing, FATES’08. LNCS, vol 5047. Springer, Berlin, pp 200–215Google Scholar
- HMN12 Implementation relations and test generation for systems with distributed interfacesDistrib Comput2012251356210.1007/s00446-011-0149-1Google ScholarCross Ref
- HN10 Hierons RM, Núñez M (2010) Testing probabilistic distributed systems. In: IFIP 30th international conference on formal techniques for distributed systems, FMOODS/FORTE’10. LNCS, vol 6117. Springer, Berlin, pp 63–77Google Scholar
- HU08 The effect of the distributed test architecture on the power of testingComput J200851449751010.1093/comjnl/bxm096Google ScholarDigital Library
- JJKV98 Jard C, Jéron T, Kahlouche H, Viho C (1998) Towards automatic distribution of testers for distributed conformance testing. In: TC6 WG6.1 joint international conference on formal description techniques and protocol specification, testing and verification, FORTE’98. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 353–368Google Scholar
- LDB93 Luo G, Dssouli R, von Bochmann G (1993) Generating synchronizable test sequences based on finite state machine with distributed ports. In: 6th IFIP workshop on protocol test systems, IWPTS’93. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 139–153Google Scholar
- LNR06 Specification, testing and implementation relations for symbolic-probabilistic systemsTheor Comput Sci20063531–32282481088.6802110.1016/j.tcs.2005.10.047Google ScholarDigital Library
- LS91 Bisimulation through probabilistic testingInf Comput199194112811231530756.6803510.1016/0890-5401(91)90030-6Google ScholarDigital Library
- LV95 Forward and backward simulations I: untimed systemsInf Comput1995121221423313485280834.6812310.1006/inco.1995.1134Google ScholarDigital Library
- MMS96 Probabilistic predicate transformersACM Trans Program Lang Syst199618332535310.1145/229542.229547Google ScholarDigital Library
- MMSS96 Refinement-oriented probability for CSPFormal Aspects Comput1996866176470862.6805010.1007/BF01213492Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mor88 The specification statementACM Trans Program Lang Syst19881034034190825.6830210.1145/44501.44503Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mor90 Programming from specifications1990Englewood CliffsPrentice Hall0697.68018Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mye04 The art of software testing20042New YorkWileyGoogle ScholarDigital Library
- Núñ03 Algebraic theory of probabilistic processesJ Logic Algebraic Program2003561–21171771048.6805710.1016/S1567-8326(02)00069-3Google ScholarCross Ref
- RC03 Coordination algorithm for distributed testingJ Supercomput20032422032111033.6801110.1023/A:1021759127956Google ScholarDigital Library
- SB84 Synchronization and specification issues in protocol testingIEEE Trans Commun19843238939510.1109/TCOM.1984.1096074Google ScholarCross Ref
- Seg95 Segala R (1995) A compositional trace-based semantics for probabilistic automata. In: 6th international conference on concurrency theory, CONCUR’95, LNCS, vol 962. Springer, Berlin, pp 234–248.Google Scholar
- Seg96 Segala R (1996) Testing probabilistic automata. In: 7th international conference on concurrency theory, CONCUR’96. LNCS, vol 1119. Springer, Berlin, pp 299–314Google Scholar
- Seg97 Quiescence, fairness, testing, and the notion of implementationInf Comput1997138219421014793220889.6805710.1006/inco.1997.2652Google ScholarDigital Library
- SL95 Probabilistic simulations for probabilistic processesNordic J Comput19952225027313460620839.68067Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tre08 Tretmans J (2008) Model based testing with labelled transition systems. In: Formal methods and testing. LNCS, vol 4949. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–38Google Scholar
- UW03 Distributed testing without encountering controllability and observability problemsInf Process Lett200388313314120063571178.6809010.1016/S0020-0190(03)00364-8Google ScholarDigital Library
- WSS97 Composition and behaviors of probabilistic I/O automataTheor Comput Sci19971761–213714486390903.6812310.1016/S0304-3975(97)00056-XGoogle ScholarDigital Library
- YL92 Yi W, Larsen KG (1992) Testing probabilistic and nondeterministic processes. In: 12th IFIP/WG6.1 international symposium on protocol specification, testing and verification, PSTV’92. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 47–61Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Using schedulers to test probabilistic distributed systems
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Implementation relations and probabilistic schedulers in the distributed test architecture
New (probabilistic) type of scheduler.Three new implementation relations for distributed testing of PIOTSs.Analysis with respect to relations with deterministic schedulers.The strongest relations are equivalent.The weakest relations differ. We present a ...
On the Expressive Power of Schedulers in Distributed Probabilistic Systems
In this paper, we consider several subclasses of distributed schedulers and we investigate the ability of these subclasses to attain worst-case probabilities. Based on previous work, we consider the class of distributed schedulers, and we prove that ...
Moving from Event-B to probabilistic Event-B
SAC '17: Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied ComputingWe propose a fully probabilistic extension of Event-B where all the non-deterministic choices are replaced with probabilities. We present the syntax and the semantics of this extension and introduce novel and adapted proof obligations for proving the ...
Comments